TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had to be decided on the merits under section 11(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, rather than being confined to the scope of rectification under section 13 of that Act; (ii) Whether royalty paid by the assessee was deductible while computing chargeable profits under rule 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, notwithstanding the absence of approval contemplated under section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had to be decided on the merits under section 11(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, rather than being confined to the scope of rectification under section 13 of that Act.
Analysis: The reference arose from the Commissioner's refusal to treat the matter as rectifiable, but the appellate dispute before the Tribunal concerned the substantive claim for deduction. The Tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as competent on merits under section 11(1) and held that the Commissioner was required to examine the claim substantively. The High Court agreed that once the appellate forum was seized of the substantive controversy, the absence of a merits-based order by the Commissioner did not prevent consideration of the issue on appeal.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
Issue (ii): Whether royalty paid by the assessee was deductible while computing chargeable profits under rule 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, notwithstanding the absence of approval contemplated under section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The deduction was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the footing that approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes was necessary under section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the restriction attached to section 80MM did not govern the computation of chargeable profits under rule 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The High Court accepted that the statutory embargo in section 80MM was absent in the surtax computation provision and that the royalty expenditure was therefore allowable in computing chargeable profits.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
Final Conclusion: The reference was decided entirely in favour of the assessee, with both referred questions answered against the Department.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the surtax computation provision contains no approval requirement analogous to section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, 1961, royalty is deductible in computing chargeable profits; and a substantive surtax appeal is to be decided on its merits even if the Commissioner did not expressly dispose of the matter on merits.
TaxTMI 
